The user Nateland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been making disruptive edits, acting aggressively, and generally being very disruptive. He has been provided with absolutely more than a fair number of warnings (and deleted some of them) based on various violations of copyright and civility policy, as well as participation in an edit/revert war. I have attempted to work with Nateland in the presumption that he has been attempting to do things on good faith, to no avail.

Here is a list of diffs; there are surely more that can probably be reviewed from the past week:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFd0man&diff=102989395&oldid=102983188 (disruptive)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fd0man&diff=102983188&oldid=102914269 (cut & paste from another user’s talk page)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fd0man&diff=102171804&oldid=102171462 (mass cut & paste from own talk page, I would consider this vandalization)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fd0man&diff=101968168&oldid=101967971 (disputing copyright)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fd0man&diff=102165756&oldid=102162085 (more disruptiveness)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fd0man&diff=102074915&oldid=102072346 (… even more)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fd0man&diff=101966686&oldid=101959257 (beginning of mess on my user talk page)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nateland&diff=102988019&oldid=102983360 (Warning which was removed)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nateland&diff=102117121&oldid=102116119 (Another)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolescent_sexuality&diff=101965628&oldid=101651899 (copyright violation)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolescent_sexuality&action=history (History, page 1)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolescent_sexuality&offset=20070120103333&action=history (History, page 2)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Illuminato&diff=102989416&oldid=102977860 (mistreatment of user)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Illuminato&diff=98494844&oldid=98366415 (more mistreatment; User:Nateland claims he must be reported to re: article changes
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Illuminato&diff=101260195&oldid=100719193 (libelous statements re: Illuminato from User:Nateland)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Illuminato&diff=102249714&oldid=102170582
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Illuminato&diff=102766392&oldid=102748522 (more mistreatment; name calling, etc)

• The entire discussion page for Adolescent sexuality.
• User talk:66.91.115.201, where User:Nateland was quite rude to a probable WP newcomer

My apologies for the length of this post; it is just some of the more blatant mistreatment and evidence. All of it would take far too much space here. Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 23:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Read over the situation briefly. Nothing more than an edit dispute where the editors don't know how to communicate without threatening each other. Anyway, the problem, Fd0man, is twofold here: first, it's a really bad idea to template people you're in a dispute with. It just makes them madder. Second, you and Illuminato did all the stuff you accused him of doing: being curt, deleting warnings, templating each other, etc. But finally, you were correct; this thread was too long, and unfortunately, it was passed over by mos admins. If you have a specific complaint about a copyright, you will need to specifically show it here; otherwise, mediation is the only way to go here. Patstuart^talk|edits 12:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at those pages before and I'll say that Nateland isn't the best editor out there. However, while he was a bit stubborn at the beginning, he has tried to discuss problems on the article talk pages, even when no one else seems to be interested in discussions. He also has had to put up with splitting articles where it's inappropriate (Adolescent sexuality in Britain, in India, and whatnot, each with its own three-paragraph articles). Some users have also used WP:AGF when I wonder if WP:DUCK should be said instead. So everyone should just calm down here, and maybe walk away from the article for a few weeks. Xiner (talk, email) 00:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Zs9000 (talk · contribs) for 48 hours for violating WP:POINT. After his article Muvy had been deleted per A7 and G11 four times, the user started nominating normal articles for speedy deletion ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]). The user apparently sees some kind of right-wing neo-imperialist capitalist neo-con pro-Israeli conspiracy in Wikipedia, judging from his edit summary "Reposted material that is not in violation to Wiki policies but which competes with Wiki admins' personal financial interests" and his repeatedly linking to [www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipediacorruptioncensorshipisraelnews480710.html] in unrelated articles. I wouldn't be surprised if the reposting, the nominating for speedy deletion etc. continued despite the block. I would advise other admins to be careful when clearing out Category:Spam pages for speedy deletion. Aecis^Bravado 00:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Pereiras article is on air right now being vandalized mocking wikipedia. Someone please!!!!!!!! fix this!!!!!!!! Andman8 00:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing to our attention. In the future, you can report incidents like this to WP:AIV, you likely get a faster response there. Thanks, ~Crazytales (IP locations!) 03:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I refer back to previous problems as reported here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive181#Persistent_trolling_by_User:193.219.28.146_on_Talk:Ass_to_mouth_-_3RR_violation.3F . The anon user has just added the same comment he has numerous times. He was asked not to do it and a special template was made in an attempt to appease. It clearly hasn't worked. Please can this talk page be semi-protected? Mallanox 01:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

other users are using my IP address and now mine is blocked for no reason towards myself. I don't know how to fix it and i'd like to be unblocked. Kait101 01:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're posting here, you're not blocked from editing. Jkelly 02:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you're able to post here, you're not blocked. You probably ran into an autoblock that expired after a short period of time. Just make further edits under your username and you shouldn't encounter any more. --Coredesat 02:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This user added original research (could possibly be vandalism) after being warned three times on his/her talk page. See this, this, this, and this. The user also vandalised a few pages such as SpongeBob SquarePants and has been warned about Carnage (Spider-Man: The Animated Series), Mind Games, Part Two, Mind Games (Spider-man) and Spider-Man: The New Animated Series as well. Squirepants101 03:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

May be a MascotGuy sock. Leave a message at user talk:Tregoweth, since that user is experienced in handling MascotGuy vandalism. ~Crazytales (IP locations!) 03:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Siddiqui has been repeatedly blocked for edit-warring, 3RR violations, disruptive editing, meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry through multiple accounts and IPs - this pattern of behavior and misconduct has continued for over a year, mainly on articles related to Pakistan. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Siddiqui, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Siddiqui (the latter details both his disruptive editing and sockpuppetry) I request permission for a permanent ban on Siddiqui for having exhausted the patience of the community. Rama's arrow (3:16) 01:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the ban per Rama. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 02:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it would be more constructive to give him a absolutely last warning no sockpuppetry/3RR/POV-pushing. I'd hate to see him banned. But, then again, I never knew his history that well. Patstuart^talk|edits 02:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

He's currently blocked for a month. Now that he knows checkuser can catch his sockpuppets, and that he won't be able to get away with edit warring anymore (because of the scrutiny this banning proposal will bring), I endorse Patstuart's last warning suggestion, and oppose a ban. He has made productive contributions, so lets hope that when he returns, he'll make them again and put this behind him. Picaroon 02:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well the reason I asked for a ban is because this type of behavior has continued for over a year, with numerous blocks, an RfC and the nabbing of his socks. I have also personally interacted with this guy and I've seen the pleas, warnings and requests for improvement of others and mine own fall on deaf ears repeatedly. About yet another warning, yet another good-faith opportunity - yeah sure, we can try. I was grossly disappointed in this fellow when I learnt of his sockpuppetry, as I had thought he had improved a bit. My thinking is that this fellow has exhausted the patience of his peers, failed Wikipedia's standards and refused to edit by its policies, for over a year. I hope that I never give away to vindictive instincts, but its clear that we are not an agency to change hearts and minds, and we really don't have any obligation to this guy left anymore - especially not after one year of trying. Rama's arrow (3:16) 15:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

He is blocked for a month anyway. Let's wait until he comes back ob Feb. 11th and see. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse - per Rama's arrow.Bakaman 21:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I can always respect the one-more-chance approach (I've benefited myself from the kindness of others), but simple logic tells me that this approach has been tried several times already in this user's history of trouble. Many people have given him "last chances" - so many good people (including The Great One) have tried for long to bring him to better ways, but to no avail. I don't see any "valuable" contributions that are worth a repetition of sockpuppetry and disruptive editing 1-2 weeks/months from now. Rama's arrow (3:16) 03:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked IP 151.100.107.63 indefinitely because it appear that the majority of edits coming from this IP are vandalism and it is listed as a "Likely Trojaned Machine, host running trojan" when I ran an IP check for an open proxy. There did appear to be 1 or 2 actual good faith edits though so if someone disagrees with my indef feel free to argue against it.--Isotope23 17:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's a Tor open proxy. These are sometimes way easy to find: google for the IP and "Tor". --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

TOR... that was the other one. Thanks. I ran it through some other checkers though I didn't know if I should be posting them up here (WP:BEANS).--Isotope23 18:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I've just made a list of all tor open proxies at User:Thatcher131/Torlist. If you want to knock off a few, go ahead. Just remove them from the list after you've blocked them. Thatcher131 18:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: WP:TOR suggests doing anon-only blocks on Tor machines, so as to leave the majority of PRC wikipedians unaffected. Most wikipedians from PRC use Tor to get around the Great Firewall. ~Crazytales (IP locations!) 03:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, except that doing so allows anyone with a registered name to be an untraceable vandal, like HalfofElement29 (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/GoodCop). I believe JP was applying full blocks. Since the checkusers have to deal with this sort of crap the most, I'd like their opinions. Thatcher131 05:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I blanked User:Titan012, since he divulged his age and email address (and also his self-awarded barnstar). Does anything else need to be done? --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 02:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You need to explain why dislosing name, age, and email address is such a terrible thing that you should have blanked the page without consulting him. -Amark moo! 03:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that and kinda disagree. There was no info that would let someone contact him "off-wiki", and he essentially admitted up-front that the barnstar was not fairly earned. —Dgies^t c 03:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

He's not that young. I'm younger (14) and I even have my mobile phone number on my user page, should anyone want to leave a voicemail. ~Crazytales (IP locations!) 03:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the information a good idea, but it doesn't violate WP:CHILD, if you are implying it does. Never mind. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 03:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"...personal information may be removed and the user counseled." I'm more worried about people posing as someone else they know and disclosing that person's info. Xiner (talk, email) 04:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Vexperiential is engaged in a >3RR edit war in Black billionaires. He has been warned. He is reverting several other editors who are explaining their reasons and attempting to compromise. He just reverts every time. Jerry lavoie 03:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Please file a report at WP:AN3. Thank you, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 03:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The user User:FRM_SYD is engaged in personal attacks against me. [7]. (Caniago 03:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC))

I gave User:FRM SYD a final {{npa4}} warning. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 03:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. (Caniago 04:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC))

Firstly, perhaps this may be useful.

I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*.

I think perhaps I'll go through semi-willy-nilly and make a bunch of people who have been around for awhile sysops. I want to dispel the aura of "authority" around the position. It's merely a technical matter that the powers given to sysops are not given out to everyone.

I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing.

— Jimbo Wales, wikimedia.org archive entry, gmane archive entry

I first ran in to User:Zoe over a discussion regarding a delete (that we both favoured). Her curt reply of no personal attacks (when there had been no attack, or at the very best the attack was aimed at me anyway) led to the comment "I have been here a lot longer than you". See here. Hardly following don't bite the newcomer.. She then cropped up in this war, where she actually removed user page content without discussing with the user. In addition very recent apologies due to her mistakes include this and this. These were as a result of her hasty actions. Further examples of her uncivility include this and also this.

I do not want a war, and have done my best to open a debate with Zoe, but to no avail. Her last comment to me was the curt "This conversation is at an end". She has not bothered to reply to my subsequent messages.

In short I feel this administrator is overstepping from being bold to a state of agression. She never seems to assume good faith but will revert first and then baack track later. These actions make her a poor administrator in my opinion. I do not expect her to have her admin "status" revoked, but would ask she calms down and takes a more relaxed attitude. Her brutal reverts and comments that come very close to personal attacks can only damage this project, by putting off potential editors. I would invite a discussion on how others feel about her actions, or indeed wether I am just being over touchy about her actions. Pedro1999a |  Talk  09:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like she tried to communicate with you but you decided to not listen. You then decided to simply cross out her comments to you. My guess is that she said she had been around a lot longer than you as a manner in which to demonstrate that maybe she knows what she is talking about. I don't see any personal attacks.--MONGO 10:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply - please see the edit history. I struck her comments out long after the conversation. I assume that as I have only been editing for 8 months you feel I don't know what I'm talking about. Thank you for your comments.Pedro1999a |  Talk  10:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I think she explained herself and tried to end the conversaation since there was nothing more to discuss on the matter. When you start out a thread as here with quotes that indicate a possible objective you may be leaning towards, this looks more like a witch hunt than anything else. I have no doubt your contributions are generally all excellent, so I encourage you to resume those efforts.--MONGO 10:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comments. I do not feel she explained herself. Her first post directed me to WP:NPA and her second was the "I've been here a lot longer than you". Her third, after I had stated I agreed with her was the curt "This conversation is at an end". There is no witch hunt, but I re-iterate that these actions are blunt and will deter editors. Pedro1999a |  Talk  10:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Zoe is very strong-willed, but she's also a very good admin. Always has been. Before jumping to ANI, try to work with users you disagree with. This page is not designed to be a first resort. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply - please see her user page and the three attempts I have made to open a dialogue that have been ignored. This is not a first resort. Thank you for your comments Pedro1999a |  Talk  10:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh WOWOW! Zoe is a she? I, obviously didn't know that, or I would have tried to be polite with her XD. In any case, this is not Wikipedia's complaint department. You might want to use dispute resolution as a means. Cheers! — Nearly Headless Nick 10:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that was an assumption of gender. I don't need dispute resolution as I have no dispute regarding edits. I am not a major contributor, prefering to vandal fight instead. I just feel that this particular admin oversteps the mark and can make newbies feel uncomfortable. As I said initially maybe I am being too touchy. Nevertheless I do feel I have tried to open a dialogue to no avail and that other members of the community have the righ to discuss, civiliy, this admins edits and more importantly others perception of the actions taken. thank you for your comments. Pedro1999a |  Talk  10:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

As per below and your comment "this is not the complaint department" can someone (not me!) remove the "If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here." at the top of the page then. Ta!Pedro1999a |  Talk  11:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• I see from her userpage that you did try to contact her multiple times, and she did not reply to your messages. You even told her yesterday that you would take it here if she did not reply. So I do think you tried to discuss, per Wikipedia policy, before coming here.Jeffpw 10:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply - Thank you Jeffpw. For transparancy other community members may note that myself and this user have discussed this post on my user page prior to me bringing it here.Pedro1999a |  Talk  10:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I am still trying unsuccessfully to work out what the serious business is. This is over, right? Sorry, but we really don't need a report on the end of every single minor spat that takes place around here: ANI is clogged up enough as it is. While it would seem to me that Zoe has not been wilfully offensive, the complaining user is being wilfully offended, which is probably worse. But what incident are we meant to be discussing? There doesn't seem to be one. If you really think Zoe is an outstanding danger to Wikipedia then WP:RFC is just down the hall, second to the left. But why is this on ANI? Moreschi ^Deletion! 10:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Because everything ends up on ANI. Offended? Run to teacher. Cheers, Ben Aveling 10:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Right at the top of this page it says "If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here." There is no specific incident, but this page states that I can make my informal complaint here. If I am just being too touchy please feel free to archive this away. I personally would like Zoe to review this however, and consider some restraint in the future. Pedro1999a |  Talk  10:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look, see what I can see. Don't get your hopes up. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No complaints about Zoe's behaviour. However, I did notice this. Opinions may differ, but in my book, that's a PA on your part. Sorry. Ben Aveling 11:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was unacceptable by me and done in the heat of the moment, hence it's subsequent removal. My apologies to the community on that. Pedro1999a |  Talk  11:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact, various people seem to have approached this with a staggering lack of tact. Suggesting that someone either take a prolonged wikibreak or give up their bit is always going to escalate the situation and is never going to help, no matter how right you are, which you aren't. Quotes like "the lunatic who runs the asylum" are not really going to help either, for obvious reasons. Moreover, continuing posts on talk page when it would seem to me like the matter is dead and buried smells to me like harassment in minor form. Moreschi ^Deletion! 10:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. You will note from the edit history I did not post the "Lunatic who runs the assylum" header, and would respectfully sugest you check this fact. I did however make the other comments. As I am trying to point out, although I am offended I feel the more important issue is the offence taken by oher editors who may well contribute more usefully than me. I did not realise that my continuing posts in reponse was Harrasment. I thought it was civility.Pedro1999a |  Talk  10:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

(Argh, Pedro... If you're going to go to the trouble of bolding and colouring "to touchy" each time can you maybe also go to the trouble of spelling it right? Ta/wangi 10:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

Guess that's why I vandal fight and don't write articles !! Thanks !!Pedro1999a |  Talk  10:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, looks like consensus is too touchy. (extra o!). As this is the opinion of those interested enough to discuss my post then I will have to be happy with it. I'll just toddle back to Recent Changes and wish everyone happy editing. But as per above lets remove the "If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here." line at the top, as most contributors here felt this was the wrong place to bring up just that. Happy editing to all. Pedro1999a |  Talk  11:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that Zoe did something wrong here. That's why people are directing you elsewhere - the idea of making an "open informal complaint" about an admin implies that the admin in question did something worthy attention on this board. Being curt doesn't cut it, at least not to me. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. The thrust of my argument was with regards to the initial snub at being a newbie (despite 800+ edits) and the action Zoe was involved in with regard to removing content from another users page without asking (where in the debate she was generally condemed - a debate I was not inolved in initially). After that further investigation highlighted a higher than one would expect proportion of instances were her reversions have caused deep upset, and were subsequently often undone. Althought I agree that "Being curt doesn't cut it" at all times, and that admins are busy people often with little time to supply fuller posts, my thrust here has been some remarkably fast deletions / removals that Zoe has then climed down on. A measured approach with more checking before arbitry deletion / removal saves everyone time in the end and makes Wikipedia a better place for people to work. Over excessive use of admin powers will make new, potentially excellent, editors either give up or go down the Cabal thought process.Pedro1999a |  Talk  15:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

NB - As per my comments above, I have no issue that the community has discussed this post and found it wanting. Whilst I do not withdraw any of my comments, they have been judged as in the wrong, and I am happy to accede to the consensus of those that have placed their views.Pedro1999a |  Talk  15:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to those who supported me. I would like to point out that it has been pointed out to me that the deletions that I made of the photographs mentioned in the complaint above appear to have been valid all along. I am still pursuing this problem. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears that one of the unpleasant sides of being an admin is having to defend yourself sometimes for the actions that you take. I, for one, appreciate the good work that you do. Cla68 23:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not the Wikipedia complaints department. That says it all. Really, really. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, whilst I note with respect that it says up top this is not the complaints department, right next to this the page has a line saying you can open an informal complaint about an admin here. Please do not blame me for a badly worded page that led me to believe this was the correct place to bring my informal complaint. I have maintained from day one here that I did not want a war but wanted to highlight some actions by someone who it would appear is otherwise held in the highest regard (and rightly so). If anyone would care to look at this then I think my informal complaint was fully justified. Selective comments (none from user Jeffpw for balance) include (with no wiki markup):

Did you ask Jeffpw to remove it before removing it yourself? Syrthiss

Well, no I didn't, and that was a failing on my part. Zoe

No violation of WP:USER is obvious here. In any event by convention editor's userpages should not be edited unilaterally and the correct thing for Zoe to do was surely to raise her concerns on Jeffpw's talkpage. To do otherwise is extremely heavy handed and disrespectful to an established contributor. WJBscribe

I think Zoe behaved incredibly badly in not simply explaining her concern first and asking Jeff to modify it (not to mention using administrative rollback on non-vandalism and all that jazz). To my knowledge, Jeff is a solid editor and that courtesy should have been given (as outlined in WP:USER). —bbatsell

OK, you're correct. She shouldn't have done that.Patstuart

We've already agreed the removal was done badly.Patstuart

I have tried not to edit these out of context. There was consensus agreement that she made an error of judgment, in particular with regard to WP:CIVIL. This was coupled with my discussions with her previously. This is why I came here, just to say that I felt there was over zealous use of powers which may deter users.

I now accept this is the opinion of few (very few!), not many, and therefore consider this debate to be at an end.

As I have stated above I respect the collective decision of the community on this, and thank all editors for their time, however please do not criticise me for bringing an informal complaint to a page that says I can do just that. I have started a debate on the talk page as to whether this should be re-worded.

Best Regards to all, and happy editing. Pedro1999a |  Talk  08:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Reposted here from Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It seams the above user has been blocked without a final warning on his userpage. I gave him a no personal attacks warning and I've just checked through his talk history and there are no final warnings given. Surely a final warning should be given(as stated on AIV) before a block? RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

He posted this after multiple vandalism warnings. The block seems appropriate to me. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If a final warning had been posted previously I would hae agreed, but surely as he hadn't received one it not fair RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

C'mon. He was adding take it up the ass and loves anal sex vandalism. He would never have been a good contributor. The guys can come back tomorrow and register another username when he cools down. 128.118.106.28 00:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It makes no sense to be lawlerly and argue that "Oh, he wasn't given a final warning". His account was vandalism-only and he has an unacceptable account name. C'mon, this is obvious stuff. The anon has it right. --Cyde Weys 00:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ryan, we don't follow procedures just for the sake of following procedures. See WP:IAR and WP:BOLD. When it's clear that a user is here to -harm- the project then it's time he got blocked. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah fair enough he doesn't seam like a very good editor, however, we should give everyone a chance. I just don't agree that someone should be blocked without been told they are about to be if they continue to vandalise RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this block of a vandalism-only account with no useful contributions and no prospect of any. Newyorkbrad 00:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Why does someone really need a warning that it is unacceptable to to replace valid encyclopedic content with take it up the ass and loves anal sex? Anyone stupid enough to not realize that that is vandalism and is unwelcome here shouldn't be editing anyway. --Cyde Weys 00:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The user has just left a statement on his talk page, might be good to look at it as to whether its believed or not. I agree with the policies WP:IAR and WP:BOLD and I'm not trying to change guildlines on blocking, I just think that its worth a look RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Support block. Obviously not here to do good, let's stop wasting time on such users and get back to the project, shall we? – Chacor 00:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Unblock and sysop. No, seriously, who cares. Keep him blocked. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I agree we shouldn't waste time, and if the consensus is to keep blocked, lets keep blocked RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Just an observation, in passing...this was a brand new account (i.e. no history of good edits) and the vandalism edits started 11 minutes after the account was created. Clearly the creator of the account was the vandal, and he wasn't here to contribute productively to the project. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. How could the account be hacked if it was just created?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There was definately some misleading information coming from somewhere, at first he said it was his mates that did it, then he soon brought up the hack allegation. After rereading this and his talk page it seams like I must have inadvertably had my 'help a vandal' hat on last night RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 08:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Pereira is being vandalized by multiple DDOS, high edit rate, please protect the page and inspect the history. Thanks. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 00:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Protected by Delirium 00:32, 26 January 2007 ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• I also protected Attack of the Show! and Olivia Munn as part of the same nonsense. I tried semiprotection but there were still sleeper accounts vandalizing at a pretty high rate. --Delirium 00:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone just hit my talk page. Too much more of this and we'll have to request DB lockdown. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 00:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

To everyone who doesn't realize it: Yuser was kidding. --Cyde Weys 00:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Are these icons necessary? --Cyde Weys 00:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutly not. Any other questions? :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. I have removed them. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Highest edit rate of vandalism I've seen on my experience on Wikipedia . I'll let you know if I find any more ... Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 00:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

For those keeping score at home, Kristin Holt, Layla Kayleigh , and Adam Sessler also are getting intermittently vandalized, although at nowhere near the same rate. --Delirium 01:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting; looks like a vandalbot. How about protecting all articles in [[Category:G4 hosts and staff]] and [[Category:G4 television series]]? (Just an observation that they are the articles getting vandalized.) Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 01:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

From what people are saying, it sounds like the show mentioned Wikipedia, driving a bunch of viewers to the site. Looks like it's dying down, probably due to the show ending. --Delirium 01:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I'll keep my eye out for more vandalism of the same type. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 01:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There were some limited vandalism on of the show's "contributors" articles, too. Hopefully it's settled down. -- Gogo Dodo 01:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't shake the fact that it must have been a vandalbot from the edit rate, but I believe it has calm down. Odd. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 01:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't. The edits were too different from each other. If it was a vandalbot, the edits would have been the same. The vandalism was all over the place and inserted into specific spots that a vandalbot would have difficulty in finding. Just a group of show viewers being opportunistic. See the Colbert incident on how easily it can escalate. -- Gogo Dodo 07:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Mcginnly has been playing silly buggers with socks - at least Joopercoopers and Antischmitz spotted so far. The edits were way too similar, the checkuser was the confirming bit of evidence and the silly games with manufacturing content disputes are really not suitable conduct. I've blocked the socks indefinitely and Mcginnly 31 hours to get out of whatever mood made him (an otherwise very active contributor) think this was a good idea - David Gerard 00:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, David Gerard. Note that Mcginnly was using Joopercoopers for content disputes on Taj Mahal, which is currently at WP:RFC. Nishkid64 00:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Unblocked. There was no evidence presented anywhere that the Jooperscoopers was used for "content disputes." All the edits were simple maintenance. Additionally, while Mcginnly decided to use that account for that article, of course, on the day of the decision, there will be edits from two accounts near each other in time. That's not a violation by itself. Thirdly, since this is a very hot topic, where, had David Gerrard investigated he would have seen, there is the ugly and unextinguishable flames of nationalism and religious intolerance at stake, any complaint deserves at least as much investigation as anyone complained about. However, none of that was the reason for the unblock.
• The reason for the unblock is simply that David Gerrard was faced with a long time and trusted community member with a clean record and unquestioned contributions and never spoke to him. I.e. he didn't investigate. He used bot-like analysis and did the block instead of using the human intelligence that we need to talk to and listen to the contributor. This is the same bad approach that generated the last "Giano affair." Blocking is a serious matter: we owe it to the people who give us their time and expertise to listen to them and consider matters. Geogre 11:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Sockpuppetry is also a serious matter. I'm conducting my own investigation and I'll keep an open mind but I can't fathom why anyone would think this is a good idea. There are several parts of WP:SOCK that may have been violated. I welcome an explanation from Mcginnly--and David. Mackensen (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Having reviewed the evidence, I doubt that I would have blocked under the circumstances. At the same time, I would have sent a sharp note to Mcginnly asking him what he was up to, and suggesting that he pick one account for Taj Mahal and stick with it. Users are allowed to have multiple accounts, but such practice is discouraged, and the cardinal rule is never to "cross the streams." How strictly this gets interpreted varies from checkuser to checkuser. I don't like what I see, but I wouldn't have blocked right away. Mackensen (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• That's great news Mackensen - seriously - but the problem is that now McGinnly a long time serving editor of very high standard articles now for eternity is branded by David Gerard on his block log with " abusive sockpuppetry". I see nothing abusive in these edits [8], [9], [10], can someone explain to be where is the "abuse". It is quite apparent that McGinnly was editing as a sock for what he felt were the right reason. There was obviously no malice or evil intent. He is a highly respected editor of architectural pages, that he should edit, and help protect Taj mahal fom vandals etc is exactly what I would expect him to be doing. So what exactly was the problem, and why did it have to result in a 30 hour block with no warning. I don't raise this point only because McGinnly is one of my close wiki-friends but because I think admins should thing about the stigma their hasty actions may cause when they blot some-one's hitherto immaculately clean log. I don't want to become in another major row, and McGinnly is big enough and ugly enough to defend himself, but as people (somwhere above) now use my name (even when I'm not connected) as crowd puller I might as well pitch in and use my (albeit temporary) celebrity status to give, what I see as a serious problem, some publicity! How about David Gerard admiting that was not abusive and having McGinnly's log wiped clean? Giano 16:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This call for wiping of block logs is a slippery slope. I realise it eventually happened to Giano's first account's block log, but I would much prefer that notes be added retrospectively to clarify possibly inaccurate block logs. Wiping them is confusing and can obscure what has happened. At the moment, the workaround is a 1-second block to add an explanatory note to the block log. On a more general note, can we please ask for block logs (indeed any logs) to be written in calm, neutral, language. Just make it vague and link to where the discussion took place. If no discussion (eg. IRC or action taken unilaterally without consultation), then say this as well. This careful writing of a block log, and careful discussion, is paramount for established users. Otherwise the whole merry-go-round of hurt feelings and wild accusations can start up again. Carcharoth 16:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I don't want to start another great interminable debate over my block log. Can someone then just put an explanation on McGinnly's block log saying he was not abusive. Giano 16:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection in principle, although it would be better if another checkuser, or David himself, was willing to do so. I'd like to hear from David before moving forward. I see no reason for undue haste; let's not add anything more to the log until we're sure. Mackensen (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I may agree w/ David's indef block of Joopercoopers but i don't see any reason why Antischmitz's account should be blocked especially that it is set for maintenence tasks. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The principle here is that administrators should interact with good-faith users, where they believe the user has violated policy, before instinctively reaching for the block button. In this instance, a talkpage inquiry or e-mail would have elicited an explanation for Mcginnly's activities and, if the explanation were not acceptable, a request could have been made that Mcginnly handle things differently. There was no reason to believe that this user would not have responded in good faith to such an inquiry and either justified or discontinued the allegedly problematic activity. It was not a situation where blocking was needed either to prevent imminent danger to the project or to gain the editor's attention.

Having myself been equipped with a block button for all of four days now, and having recently had to make the decision about whether to press it for the first time for something other than obvious repeated vandalism, reinforces to me that while it is easy to second-guess any administrative decision, at the same time we need to bear in mind how serious a thing it is to block an established contributor. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. A block means that we are saying to an editor "this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit today—except you." It really sought to be a last resort. Newyorkbrad 16:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It's really not a problem - We've exchanged emails and kissed and made up - DG's was a genuine mistake, mine was not informing anyone of my socks. I'd really rather the matter was dropped, not least because the whole purpose of the sock was to cushion myself against the potential problems over at the taj mahal talk page and P.N. Oak, I believe the socks will be unblocked and I can get back to work. Naturally if the POV shitstorm does hit the mcginnly account I hope I can rely on admin backup? I don't ever envision runnning for president so the block logs is neither here nor there. regards. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This is why I unblocked, though. I had been asked to contribute help with the Taj article, when the time came to improve it, so I knew the background. Anyone could have by simply communicating with the user. I don't mean to jump on David Gerrard's head too much here, but it's very, very, very important with established users to ask them. Honestly, if it takes too much time to converse with people, then you probably don't have time to be a blocking administrator. With hit and run IP's, it's one thing, but with long timers, with fellow admins, it's simply nuts. Blocking without warning is absolutely in violation of blocking policy. Blocking based on complaint not recorded on Wikipedia, running check users without written requests, these are also not kosher. We shouldn't have situations like this in the name of vandal hunting. Geogre 19:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't bust up David Gerard for this. I asked for CheckUser, and he performed it. I told him what he had been using the accounts for, quoting another administrator involved in the dispute. I was contacted soon after by Mcginnly and I told him about the multiple violations of WP:SOCK. Although he disagreed with most of them, I showed that he did indeed violate WP:SOCK. But alas, as you're saying, it's subject to interpretation. Meh, I'll drop the issue now, but I don't appreciate how my input was not even asked for in this issue. Nishkid64 21:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Importantly, did you submit a WP:RFCU, or did you do it more "verbally?" What I was saying has been a hot topic lately: we need to leave tracks with all our actions, and so we have to be careful that all check user activities are highly accountable. That's what I was saying. Geogre 11:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Firdaus 76 (talk · contribs) has spent the last days editing Kosovo-related articles from a strong Albanian POV, removing mentions of Serbia and translating all place-name into Albanian.
I already warned him in his talk page, and made him aware that all Kosovo-related articles are currently under article probation (as a result of the Kosovo arbitration case), but he persists... - Best regards, Evv 12:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Today, Firdaus 76 continued removing "Yugoslavia" from Kosovo-related articles, and translating place-names into Albanian. I again left him a message in his talk page. – Please note in his edit history that this kind of edits are almost all he does, toghether with changes in ethnic statistics (see his talk page), with only some few exceptions. So far, he has never used a talk page or an edit summary. - Regards, Evv 11:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

User Dino was just unblocked. This user claimed on Jan. 15, 2007, that he contacted the author of a particularly contentious article (used to support claims regarding 'death threats' in the Wiki Free Republic article) and that this author said that he never wrote the article in question. "I contacted TJ Walker and asked him whether he authored the article. He said, "Of course not." here (when TJ Walker certainly did write the article - and it's even archived from his website on the www! here) Based on these false claims, a Wiki Foundation employee (who is not an active editor) User:Carolyn-WMF edited this contested article and removed critical material here - based on these bogus claims (and possibly even impersonation) by Dino. proof here. I look forward to a complete investigation of this matter, and find the utter unresponsiveness of this WMF employee and another Foundation member, Danny Wool, when questioned about this matter by two Admins and two editors more than a little troubling. Are they too embarrassed and chagrined to admit that they got 'snookered'? (If that is the case, and meaning no disrespect) - Fairness & Accuracy For All 22:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It was correctly removed as those personal websites and personal communications are not reliable sources and anecdotal evidence has no place here. User:DeanHinnen has done nothing wrong and his molestation should stop. He has also agreed (above and beyond what should be required) not to edit the article FAAFA is complaining about. See this and this for the fuller story. HE should be allowed to continue to edit unharrassed and unmolested. --Tbeatty 22:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You're wong. TJ Walker is a published notable author and RS whose work has recently appeared on CBS and National Review. Here is a list of the dozens of articles, including the one in question titled '7-6-99 Is the FreeRepublic.Com Really DeathThreat.Com?', which appeared on what you call a 'personal website' TJ Walker - All Columns 1999-2000 during the time-frame in question. What he wrote is citable, but even if it wasn't - for Dino to claim that he contacted TJ 'who denied writing the article' and then using these false claims to coerce a Wiki Foundation employee into editing on his behalf merits nothing less than a full investigation. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 22:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that I recently unblocked DeanHinnen/Dino based on a consensus reached at unblock-en-l. This had nothing to do with the issues above, however. He was accused of being a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of BryanFromPalistine (sp?). This is the extent of my involvement in the matter. --Yamla 22:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe you were taken in. I can find no record of Bryan having a brother at all, and no Dean Hinnen born after 1949 shows up when I search. As we know Bryan to be much younger than that, this person is not likely to be his Brother. And in any case there does appear to be a meatpuppet relationship if this is a separate person as he has begun right were Bryan left off using the same words, phrases, and modes of attack. --BenBurch 01:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe Bryan's real name might be Dean. I signed up to to the unblock list and read the discussion, and Dino's requests to be unblocked, and Dean is a very real name working where he claimed he worked. They might also be brothers, like what is claimed by Dean. Dean also insinuated that he was editing to protect Wiki from possible libel suits from FR, (I took it as a vieled threat) where he claims to act as a mod. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 02:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, we do know he did a lot of his "editing" from his employer's network. Must be a very liberal employer, because when I have worked for manufacturing companies in the past they were most clear that using company assets for such things was strictly verboten. Also I find it troubling that he, as an employee of that company was editing its entry here on Wikipedia, a clear WP:COI --BenBurch 03:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It was not a veiled threat. In fact, at no point did I suggest litigation; at several points, I explicitly stated that I was not threatening litigation and was seeking to protect Wikipedia from litigation (a fact supported by the Unblock-en-l ruling here after abundant evidence was presented, and abundant patience displayed); and at no point did I "claim to act as a mod" (moderator) at Free Republic. Let's get the facts straight, in spite of the present efforts to distort and misrepresent the facts. Above, on this page, I've asked admins to block BenBurch and FAAFA. A link to the evidence against them here Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BenBurch has been helpfully provided by Peter M Dodge. Thanks for your continued patience. Dino 03:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You represented that you were a member of the Free Republic "Legal Team", or are you denying that now, Bryan? --BenBurch 03:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The legal team does not have moderating privileges at Free Republic. These two functions are separate and performed by different groups of people. Dino 03:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I was a small part of the investigation into this matter due to the discussion on the list and I support the consensus to unblock DeanHinnen/Dino and see how things go. His manner on that list and his apparent sincerity and flexibility impressed me, and I felt that an unblock was the right thing to do. Certainly I could be proven wrong, but I hope not. I am not sure that having several major participants in this matter calling for blocks is likely to be helpful at this time so I'd suggest letting go for now, and going back to substantively editing to improve our content. If there are incidents in future, please present the incident particulars in a factual neutral way and leave the advocacy out if at all possible. ++Lar: t/c 13:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

(UI) Dino wrote in unblock-en-l "Like Wikipedia, Free Republic is run principally by volunteers, but does have a very small paid staff. I'm one of the volunteers. We are concerned about the Wikipedia article about Free Republic, which contains material I believe to be libelous." and "I would like to work constructively... to protect Wikipedia from civil liability for libel. That's what Carolyn Doran and I were trying to do..." Excuse me from interpeting your claim of being a volunteer on FR as 'being a mod', and your words as being a 'vieled threat' - my mistake. - Fairness & Accuracy For All

Dino has agreed not to edit the FreeRepublic article. Why is this still an issue? --Tbeatty 03:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Why would you defend someone who claimed they contacted an author and said that the author denied writing an article when we all know now that he DID write the article in question? Still lionizing dishonesty and the 'culture of corruption' Beatty? Think repeated and rampant dishonesty is 'smart' and 'clever' do you? - Fairness & Accuracy For All

T.Beatty wouldn't do that, now that he is aware of the facts. I know him to be a fair man even if I disagree with him about most things. --BenBurch 05:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Because, my friend, he just admitted to being Bryan. And therefore a sock. And therefore a liar. And therefore he lied his way out of his block. See above where I call him out on having claimed to be part of the FR legal team? He admitted to it. BUT, it was not DEAN who made that claim. It was Bryan. So by admitting to this he has admitted to being Bryan. I have no quarrel with him editing anything! I never did as long as he was not removing sourced information or inserting NNPOV, what I object to, and will continue to object to is him using sock puppets to evade a block, which he is DOING RIGHT NOW. I have welcomed Bryan back from blocks several times, and should he, under his main account, get himself unblocked, I will welcome him back again and work WITH him. But what he has done here is inexcusable. Not only is he evading his block, but he actually called WikiMedia Foundation on the phone and harassed poor Carolyn. And lied to the unblocking people. DISGUSTING. --BenBurch 04:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

True - 'Bryan' previously claimed to be part of the FR 'legal team' who 'flew out to L.A. to advise FR's attorney on the L.A. Times vs. Free Republic lawsuit' ("A life and death struggle against the socialist propaganda machine"! LOL !) - Fairness & Accuracy For All

Dino wrote in unblock-en-l "Like Wikipedia, Free Republic is run by volunteers. I am one of those volunteers; I'm part of the Free Republic legal team. I mentioned the TJ Walker article, however I most certainly did not impersonate him. I can only conclude that after I spoke with Carolyn the first time, she called TJWalker herself and made a determination as to its authenticity and accuracy.[see claims above where Dino says HE contacted TJ Walker] Carolyn encouraged me to just open a Wikipedia account and remove the libelous material myself... As I've done with other websites in similar circumstances, rather than edit the material myself (and be called a vandal), I encouraged Carolyn to enforce her own policies on her own website. She did so....Her edit was reverted. Then I opened an account, tried to courteously educate all involved about what was going on, and restored Carolyn's edit. For this, I was permablocked and the edit was again reverted." [thus he admits to totally violating Wiki's policy of being edited by users] - Fairness & Accuracy For All

He accuses another editor (User:DeanHinnen) of lying.[11] I've asked him to refactor this personal attack but he chose to delete my request rather than refactor. Jimbo is clear on this. User:Fairness And Accuracy For All and formerly User:NBGPWS has a long history of being blocked for personal attacks and other incivility and it is surprising that with his history he would take this so lightly.[12]. Please have him refactor his comments and warn him that this type of incivility is not necessary to complete the encyclopedia. --Tbeatty 05:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but we conslusively know, as it's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Dino is lying, and my documentation of his lying is part of administrative proceedings - not in article mainspace, as Jimbo's comments are in reference to. Dino wrote that he contacted noted author and pundit TJ Walker (regarding an article used to support claims of 'death threats' in the Free Republic article) and that this author said that he never wrote the article in question. "I contacted TJ Walker and asked him whether he authored the article. He said, "Of course not." here (when it's been proven that TJ Walker undoubtedly did write the article - and it's even archived from his website on the www! here). Here is a list of the dozens of articles, including the one in question titled '7-6-99 Is the FreeRepublic.Com Really DeathThreat.Com?' , which Dino claims Walker told him he 'didn't write'. TJ Walker - All Columns 1999-2000 That my friend, was a bald-faced lie, and how you could defend such actions is beyond me. -Fairness & Accuracy For All

Um... you took Jimbo's quote out of context. In that case, there was simply no evidence of lying. Here there is. -Amark moo! 05:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it wasn't out of context. There are plenty of explanations that don't include lying including different recollections as well as multiple people name TJ Walker. You have no idea whether he talked to TJ Walker or not (or which TJ walker, texas ranger). This is the whole point of AGF. Dino was blocked for sockpuppetry and that block was overturned despite all BryanFromPalatine socks and edits and is no longer an issue. The relevant facts for this were that the source for the claim at the FR article pulled the article. Regardless of who may have prompted them to do so, the source is the ones that did it. This user has agreed not to edit the article. Please stop molesting him and allow him to edit Wikipedia just like the rest of us. Tbeatty 11:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - Dino called TJ Walker the baseball player, questioned him about the article he may have written documenting Free Republic's death threats, and then satisified that this was the correct TJ Walker who was purported to have written the article in question, reported these denials on Wiki and to the Wiki Media Foundation employee who he coerced into editing for him. Riiight! LOL! We didn't all just fall off the turnip truck! - Fairness & Accuracy For All

FYI, Possible sock? User:The Dino just created.--MONGO 05:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That would fit the pattern, Mongo. User:BryanFromPalatine (the original puppetmaster in this sordid affair) uses a LOT of different socks. --BenBurch 06:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mongo. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 06:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Here. Presume for a moment that FAAFA/NBGPWS might be wrong (i.e. AGF). This is simply not appropriate. --Tbeatty 12:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That's no threat. Dino made libelous claims about author TJ Walker, saying he didn't write one of his articles, and that TJ Walker had even admitted this to Dino. Now TJ is suspected of plagarism or worse because of what Dino 'claims' and what he wrote in several different places on Wiki. If Dino doesn't substantiate or withdraw these claims, I will, as a fan of TJ Walker's work, be forced to notify him of the public, libelous smears against his character by Dino. I strongly suggest you unhitch your caboose from this train wreck, Beatty. - Fairness & Accuracy For All

A) that is not libelous and B) claiming that his edits might be a crime and claiming he is misusing his employers property/time sounds pretty threatening to me. It is certainly against policy. We are not here to intimidate other users. Please stop doing it. --Tbeatty 14:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone who will respect the recent ruling of Unblock-en-l after they invested more than a week of exhaustive and patient review of the evidence, and made the right call? Someone who will ensure that others respect that ruling as well? Is any admin on this website going to step up and do the right thing?

It was decided here that I am not a sockpuppet, and that I am making a good faith effort to remove libelous statements from a Wikipedia article and protect Wikipedia from litigation. May I continue to make those good faith efforts? Are my good faith efforts going to be matched by the good faith efforts of others in this community?

These libelous statements are being defended with a fanaticism that reminds me of Iwo Jima. Would someone do something about this, please? Dino 13:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

They already told me that they didn't consider anything other than sockpuppet charges. The very troubling charges regarding your claims of talking to author TJ Walker, and him 'admitting' that he didn't write an article attributed to him (I'm not sure if you're alleging plagarism or ghost writing, or that aliens from planet Xenu wrote the article) and your posting of these smears against TJ's charcter and professional carreer, and you coercing a Wiki employee to edit the Free Republic article based on these claims of yours will be investigated Dean. If I am wrong, and what you claim is the complete truth, I will voluntarily withdraw from editing the Free Republic article forever. Fairness & Accuracy For All

User:The Weekly Musician has no edits other than to create an elaborate user page describing his website "The Weekly Musician" and another edit to a city article inserting a spam link to his website. Thought it should be deleted under the Wikipedia is not a web hosting service guideline. For future reference, is this the place to report something like this, or is somewhere else more appropriate. Caper13 08:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's usually handled on WP:MFD or speedy deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This section has been courtesy blanked. - Mailer Diablo 17:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Hkelkar was banned for one year by the ArbCom as part of the Hkelar ArbCom case. I believe that Hkelkar is evading his ban using the account User:Rumpelstiltskin223. As I was party to the case, I will not take unilateral action against the user. I would like other admins to look at the evidence I have collected.

• If you look at the user creation log, the account was created on 15 November, around the time when the case was going on. The user started to edit on the same day with the first edit being a revert with the edit summary "rv".
• After some edits here and there, Rumpelstiltskin223 became completely active from 10th December (the day Hkelkar got banned).
• Since then, Rumpelstiltskin223 has made close to 1400 edits in the mainspace. He has already shown the same pro-hindu and anti-muslim bias that hkelkar had and has already been blocked 4 times for edit-warring. [13]
• Most of the articles edited by Rumpel were frequented by Hkelkar too.:
  1. 2002 Gujarat violence - This was Hkelkar's 2nd most edited article. Rumpel has 24 edits to it already. [14]
  2. Dalit Buddhist movement - Another article frequented by Hkelkar, and now frequented by Rumpel.
  3. Dalit - [15]
  4. Islam in India - [16]
  5. Hindutva - [17] (This one edited by Hkelkar in both his avatars - Shiva's trident and Hkelkar)
  6. Lashkar-e-Toiba - [18]
• Though Rumpelstiltskin223 hasn't uploaded many images yet, he shows the same style there too by uploading images from websites having a cc-by-sa license. His last upload is from flickr, from which Hkelkar used to upload a lot of pics. See [19] and [20]
• Also see [21] where it is said that Rumpelstiltskin223 is pursuing a PhD in physics. Hkelkar/Shiva's trident was also pursuing a PhD in physics.

Thus I feel that Rumpelstiltskin223 is no one but Hkelkar using a new name and probably editing from a different geographical location and I seek an indef-block on Rumpelstiltskin223 and a reset on Hkelkar's ban. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think this user is necessarily editing from a new location? Would a checkuser help? Grandmasterka 12:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

We knew all the IPs that Hkelkar edited from and the college he went too. He is too clever to use an IP from the same town. I have a feeling that a checkuser on Rumpel will not prove (or disprove) anything. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hkelkar. does that discount the use of proxies? ITAQALLAH 12:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The checkusers will note the use of proxies if they identify them as such at the time. Also, the checkuser was run over winter break, making it possible that Hkelkar was editing from another location but is now back at uni. Asking for a recheck couldn't hurt. Finally, checkuser can be defeated by a number of technical means both simple and complex, so sockpuppetry is always determined primarily by contributions and behavior. Thatcher131 15:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite unlikely. If the only source you have for "physics" is some hallucination DaGizza experienced then that's hardly proof. Hkelkar's blocks were mainly for incivility not WP:3RR. Since when does a user go from careful on wp:3RR to getting blocked for it frequently? The "facts" dont add up. If you didnt know aksi, there are way more users than rumpel that hold pro-Hindu biases (anti-Muslim is incorrect). Oh no a user of "rv", something every user uses as an edit summary, and anyone that has even viewed a page history on wiki has seen.Bakaman 21:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have seen this accusation being bandied around on wikipedia before and sockpuppetry accusations abused and misused.I am not anybody's sockpuppet, and please feel free to do any checkuser that is needed. This accusation is largely based on the rants of an anonymous ip, who has been evading blocks using multiple ips from the same domain, making insults and slurs in my user page, and trying to recruit people against me. See [22] [23]Rumpelstiltskin223 23:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been accused of "anti-muslim" bias, an accusation I find highly offensive and insulting, particularly in the light of my edits [24],[25]. I am not against any religion. In addition, if you will notice the 6 articles itemized by aksi_great, you will see that my edits have primarily been of a technical nature and maintainance-type edits. I expanded the article on Dalit considerably with information that was lacking [26] and I consider myself to have done the article a service. Rumpelstiltskin223 23:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It is quite irrelevant if Rumpelstiltskin223 is or is not a sockpuppet. Also, I advice everybody to ignore his/her complaints about other editors. Fact is, this user is disruptive to Wikipedia and shows absolutely no desire to improve him/herself. When he/she was blocked and asked how to avoid such situations, I sympathized with him/her and took his/her question for real. I offered some advice, but he consistently refused to even look at it. Even his "thank you" was mostly a complaint about other users. When I finally announced that I was giving up AGF on him/her, he/she deleted our last conversation. It seems to me that this user is intent on having problems with other editors. Much as I believe in the good in people, I'm at the end of my wisdom with that user. I am really no fan of punitive measures, but I don't see any use for Wikipedia in further allowing this user to edit. — Sebastian 00:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so he's here as well, protesting my protestations of an anonymous user calling me a "Madarchod" (that's Indian slang for "low-caste motherfucker") and declaring that I am "disruptive" and should have "punitive measures" imposed on me, for reverting vandalisms by anon ips to dozens of articles [27][28][29][30][31][32] today itself,starting several articles on Hindi films,

[33] [34] [35] [36] [37] and dispelling the ongoing wikipedia-myth that Indians constitute some sort of "race" (the ignorance here boggles my mind)[38][39][40] Given your indefensible behaviour against the verifiable truth on Decline of Buddhism in India, your consistent support for a User:Iwazaki, who has said that he intends to undo the "rape of his country on wikipedia"[41] together with increasing incivility and ethnic attacks on Tamil people from this guy with no protestations of neutrality and tendentiousness from you, and your sudden declaration of hostility against me, one wonders what your intentions here really are.Rumpelstiltskin223 00:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Who is this "sebastian" person? He seems like a sock/meat of someone. Also sebastian's treatment of RaveenS (talk · contribs) and Rajsingam (talk · contribs) leave me to wonder whether he is a sinhala nationalist.Bakaman 03:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's unlikely that someone who has been around since January 2003 is someone's sock/meatpuppet. Grandmasterka 08:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Rumpey, the evidence that you are Hkelar is pretty strong. What do you have to say to all of Aksi's other points? Coincidence? Khoikhoi 07:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What points? I edit whatever coincides with my interests. I am interested in Indian history, Indian politics, Religion and Politics in South Asia, Hindi Films and Star Trek. My edits show that I am neither pro-Hindu nor anti-Muslim, just interested in unbiased articles, many of which have biases against Hindus, others which have biases against Muslims and Christians that I am working on. If you see my edits to Christianity in India[42], I have edited a very neutral section depicting the Hindu-Christian conflict, and talked about syncretic Indianization of several Christians, like St. Thomas Christians and other sects who have blended Indian culture with Christian theology. I also plan to add that Christians in South India re-enact Biblical parables using Indian dances like Kathakali. Still, I was accused of being an "anti-Christian" by that Bdebbarma user [43] because of my edits to Tripura Baptist Christian Union[44] and their involvement in Christian extremist terrorism in Tripura. I do not take such accusations seriously as they seem to be the product of a narrow mind.

I am presently engaged in re-writing Mukti Bahini, a predominantly Muslim outfit. I am also getting material on historical attitudes on Islamophobia and anti-Arabism,articles to which I have already added information if you look at the history page. Where is this "pro-Hindu" and "anti-Muslim"/"anti-Christian" bias of which you people speak please answer me?

Whenever my edits seem to portray other religions in a negative light, well, it is not my fault that (according to Muslim editors) "partisan hacks" like Amnesty International and BBC [45] showcase the Persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh at the hands of Islamic Fundamentalists. It is not my fault that scholars and academics have written lengthy articles and books criticizing the Fundamentalist Jamaat-e-Islami[46]. If you don't like it then go contact the academics who wrote those articles. Attacking me on some cooked-up sockpuppetry charge will not be productive to wikipedia thaa.

I do not know how I can prove to you of my identity, since you do not know who I am and I am under no obligation to give you my personal information. I have edited many articles across many topics, and this aksi_great has conveniently cherry-picked a few that I have edited and then yell "Aha! Sockpuppet". I can do that to any two users. If you give me some time, I can manufacture such a case against other users too. If you want to do a checkuser to settle your doubts, please do so. However, do not keep bothering me with such spurious charges simply because you people want to keep your unacademic biased articles biased forever, since that will not happen, irrespective of what you do to me or anyone else. Rumpelstiltskin223 12:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

There are many more articles where there is similarity between their edits:

• Goa Inquisition was one of the last articles edited by Hkelkar [47]. For example, Hkelkar made 10 consecutive edits to the article on 7th December. Rumpel's first block was on 16th December for edit-warring on Goa Inquisition.
• Rumpel's 2nd block was for edit-warring on History of India with User:Siddiqui. Hkelkar also had a history of editing that article, and reverting Siddiqui using popups. See [48], [49].
• Rumpel's 4th block was for edit-warring on Anti-Brahmanism. This article was also heavily edited by Hkelkar and Hkelkar's previous avatar - Shiva's Trident. Hkelkar had edit warred with other users like Ikonoblast on the article. Rumpel is currently on a reverting spree on the article.

I could go and investigate each article that Rumpel has edited. Almost every article that Rumpel has edited has been previously edited by Hkelkar/Shiva's trident. - Aksi_great (talk) 11:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, see above. Second of all. I hardly doubt that your statement above has any merit at all, given the articles that I have edited (and only I) and, so far nobody else has (almost). least of all this user of which you speak. I will compile a list for you in a few minutes below: Rumpelstiltskin223 12:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

These are the articles that I have edited that almost nobody else has:

• Mr. India 2 (2007 film) [50]
• Rajneeti[51]
• Banaras - A Mystic Love Story [52]
• Anthony Kaun Hai[53]
• Aparichit (2006 film)[54]
• Chand Ke Paar Chalo[55]
• Adharm (2006 film)[56]
• Criticisms of Star Trek[57]
• Chittisinghpura massacre [58]
• Bogoliubov Prize for young scientists[59] (I came across this article as I was searching the "New Pages" Special page and it was in baaad shape so I did a few google searches and improved upon it, more cases of this are noted below)
• I have done maintainance work on countless articles (tagging mew articles for categorization, categorizing them, Afd'ing bogus new articles). Example is Fareed Armaly [60].
• Another example is Template:Maurya Empire infobox which I created from scratch and added article according to my interests in ancient history of India[61].
• It is highly interesting that aksi_great accuses me of "Hindu bias" because User:Devanampriya accused me of the opposite. According to him I am a "Eurocentric anti-Hindu" for wanting to include Greek and Aramaic as some of the principal languages of the Mauryan Empire[62]. Yes people, I am a some sort of soot-boot-pehena-sahib determined to defame Hindu culture apparently in direct opposition to aksi_great's accusation.
• Here is one article that I have created regarding Mauryans (who were BUDDHISTS, not HINDUS). Mantriparishad[63]
• Deanna Troi [64].
• Tractors in India [65]
• Mumbai Godfather article I created and wrote single-handedly [66]
• Bangla science fiction[67]
• Klingon language[68]
• Klingon starships [69]
• Akira class starship (Star Trek) [70]
• Defiant class starship (Star Trek)[71]]

and, finally,

• Human penis size, where Indians are being portrayed as some sort of "race"[72]

Do you want more? How about all the articles that were being vandalized by anons that I sniffed out and fixed? Just look at my contributions page and see. Rumpelstiltskin223 12:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding History of India, aksi_great says that this other user hkelkar has "also revert-warred against User:Siddiqui on that article using popups". Here is the history page of that article [73]. I see no such popups by this hkelkar so that statement is a falsehood

I am not on a "reverting spree" on Anti-Brahmanism. I have removed edits that carried racist propaganda, and ,in fact, haven't edited the articele in quite some time.Henceforth, kindly stop making up edits and conjuring up false scenarios, then relying on your colleagues to bolster your bogus arguments by saying "Oh, that is soo convincing".Right, that's subtle! Rumpelstiltskin223 12:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

When did I say that the articles that I have mentioned were the only articles you have edited? Hkelkar has been banned by the ArbCom, and it is my duty to not allow Hkelkar in any form to edit wikipedia for 1 year. I have tracked Hkelkar's edits for a very long time leading up to the ArbCom case. I feel that I have gathered enough proof that you are indeed Hkelkar. The similarities are too close to be co-incidences. If the administrators want I can produce more similarities. If they are not able to decide about ban-evasion, I am prepared to ask the ArbCom for intervention. - Aksi_great (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Then you are doing absolutely nothing. O and aksi just above " Almost every article that Rumpel has edited has been previously edited by Hkelkar/Shiva's trident". Your argument is flimsy and self contradictory. Do you not know that the BJP won a majority not too long ago in India? There are over 400 million people that subscribe to the brand of politics I assume rumpel belongs to.Bakaman 21:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

HKelkar's biggest defender ( and a part of the arbcom on Hkelkar) comes and defends this user ? All this just deepens the suspicion about Rumpelstiltskin223. Of those 400 million supporters only one has so far used 3 sockpuppets to edit only these articles, and has got into repeated civility and revert brawls and blocks. A point to remember is that Hkelkar/Shiva's Trident/Pusyamitra Sunga was known to use technology to dodge checkuser in the past. Being a University student doing a Physics doctorate should enable him to get the resources required to do so Haphar 08:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply - Still pissed Blnguyen (talk · contribs) got elected to arbcom despite megabytes of troll-speak on his candidacy talk page? Bakaman 21:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Baka Attempts at trolling would not add to Hkelkar's defence. By jumping in you have hurt his case enough, and such "civility" as expressed by you here is not adding to your cause either.Haphar 07:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of these so-called "incriminating edits" are routine vandalism patrols by me. I have been tracking anonymous edits for a while now, as they seem to be the most vandalistic statistically. It is not my fault that certain articles are troll-attractors and so will be edited contentiously by anons. Rumpelstiltskin223 02:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

These patrols started immediately after claiming that "How about all the articles that were being vandalized by anons that I sniffed out and fixed? Just look at my contributions page and see"and in an insensible way, and obviously removing other comments from his talk page [74] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mustafa Bhai (talk • contribs) 12:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

No. Vandalism reverts have been done by me for many weeks now. See these [75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89]

[90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97] made over the course of long time, just a small sample.

Here are some more "pro-Hindu anti-Muslim" edits of mine:

Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia[98]

Darwaaza Bandh Rakho[99]

Sto-Vo-Kor [100] - very pro-Hindu anti-Muslim, if Muslims are Klingons, hee.

[[ ]]

Want more?Rumpelstiltskin223 13:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

And yes, then it would be easier to claim that "I have edited non India, non Hindu-Muslim related articles as well " just by reverting some edits (apparently indiscriminately) assuming that anonymous authors don't have editing rights.Bakasuprman has mastered this art well by creating categories and assigning them to innumerable articles and swelling his edit count 87.74.3.128 07:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"Mastered this art", I am hardly answerable to an IP troll going around with wild conspiracies. My edit couint is large mostly because of categories, but only a couple have been cfd'd like 2 out of 70 or so, proving that I create useful categorization on the pedia. What do you do 87.xx? You're obviously a sock of a blocked user coming on wiki to talk trash about Hindu users, do note Wiki is not a soapbox for fantasy.Bakaman 21:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note that accusations of your interlocutor do not serve as an answer; also, the imputation of motive above is a terrible violation of several different policies and guidelines, which you, I am sure, would hate to violate. Hornplease 09:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have submitted my evidence and I conclude that Rumpel is indeed Hkelkar. I would like to know if there is consensus among admins of the same so that Rumpel can be blocked from wikipedia. Please review the evidence and put your support or oppose below. Please feel free to ask me any questions regarding the evidence that I have provided. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Seconded I would further like to add 1:His first 5 edits were reverts and out of his first 50 over 70% are reverts which [101] which I find strange.I checked over 75 others over and none of them had reverts at the start .This shows that Rumpelstiltskin223 is experienced in using Wikipedia before he started using this user name.new users take time to learn even computer experts.

2:Being an Indian he choice the name Rumpelstiltskin223 as it would avoid suspician of him being Hkelkar.It is not usual nickname or chat name used anywhere in India or by Indians .First time seeing an Indian use since I started using the net over 10 years ago.If I had not seen his edits I would never guessed he was an Indian,it is totally alien to an Indian.Hence difficult to find he is Hkelkar

3:His comments are fantical and he cannot stand other views broke the 3RR rule 6 times and 5 times this month and was blocked 5 times and page protected in Vaikom Satyagraha.Look his fantical talk in various talk pages.While I respect his views.

4:[102] Please check this another user Harper gives some evidence to be being being Hkelkar

Adyarboy 18:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Lol the users that perpetuate this myths are generally those that hate Hindus in general. Adyarboy is involved in trying to suppress the racist aims of a fanatical anti-Hindu and has gone to mouthing off to get atttention.Haphar (talk · contribs) is well known as a Hindu hater as well. O and guess what? Bakaman is not an Indian name either. Am I an alien? How about Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington (talk · contribs), Nobleeagle (talk · contribs), Lostintherush (talk · contribs), etc. All of us are Indian (or of Indian dewcent) and none of us use Indian names.Bakaman 21:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply - Name calling is the first sign of someone losing an argument :-). Haphar 07:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Further evidence .The anti semitism claims[103], The smart aleck comments + The Protocol of Zion and Hindu conspiracy theory [104] And user history [105] all point to too much of similiarity. Haphar 12:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are you vandalizing my comments? Anti-Semitism, I believe you are referring to the Balaghat circular. Well its true that terrorists use lies to expound on other lies.Bakaman 21:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Your Comments ? LOL-The evidence is related to Rumpel not you. Your Khalistan|terrorists bit in the preceding comment is just more signs of losing one's argument as well as logic to resort to now religion based name calling. Just goes on to show who is actually anti a religion.Haphar 07:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I have an extensive knowledge of the editing pattern of Netaji, also known as Shiva's Trident, and what was later decided was his sockpuppet, HKelkar, as well as that of most prominent members of the posse that share his extremist religious ideology. When it was first claimed that Kelkar was Netaji, I disagreed; the fact that checkuser indicated I was wrong was indicative of this puppetmaster's ability to evade detection. While I disagree that the name or the choice of articles is in itself sufficiently indicative, I am drawn in particular to the accusations of anti-semitism that Haphar quotes above; that is something that was peculiar to this puppetmaster. In particular, the description of the Dalit Freedom Network as a hate site because of 'holocaust denial'., while possibly true, is surprising, as it is possibly the last thing that the average follower of Indian politics would check for, but the first thing that this particular wacko would. Hornplease 09:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about Dalit Voice, not Dalit Freedom Network. Please read the diff or do a better job of lying about it.Plus, I read that article first, then did some research on this "London Insitute of South Asia" place and their affiliation with anti-Jews before I replied to that anonymous Khali nutter (just read his posts, he kept yelling "Hindus Lie" and that Professor Mark Juergensmayer of UC Santa Barbara is a "Hindutva liar" for calling Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale a terrorist and "India will break up soon" and other such rot, is wikipedia supposed to be a place for such nonsense?[106]). I have been following a very interesting set of edit-wars/discussions on Racism and Allegations of Israeli Apartheid where some guy was citing http://www.jewishtribalreview.org as a reference and was severely rebuked since that is a Jew-hating website and those have no credibility, together with organizations affiliated to them like Institute for Historical Review, as is the case with this "London Institute of South Asia" and their affiliation with Rajshekhar. This was the thought process that entered my mind. It was simply the quickest and most efficient way to get rid of him and other crazy people and I do not see how this has anything to do with allegations of socks or whatever. Rumpelstiltskin223 10:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure why I should be accused of 'lying' in that I confused Dalit Voice with Dalit Freedom Network, both fairly obscure organisations with similar agendas. This response is troubling, as a new user who has never interacted with me before is unlikely to greet me with this accusation, I think - unless the user was intensely disruptive, as indeed the banned puppetmaster was.

The explanation proffered above I leave to other editors to attempt to decipher. I dont think it is very believable; that it shows the combination of aggression, random accusations and links that have characterised Pusyamitra/Netaji/Subhash/Trident/Kelkar in the past might be just a coincidence. Hornplease 16:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone may want to look over the contribs and actions of administrator User:Lucky 6.9, who appears to be leaving the site after an RFC filing that seems to have come from some earlier bad blood. He's blocked himself, from the looks of things, as his last act, but it seems it might be worth an admin looking things over. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but my gut feeling is that he will probably return eventually - he previously declared (twice) that he would leave for good, but came back both times. I think he was probably just upset, and if he calms down, or gets bored after a while, who knows what he might do... Scobell302 06:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There has been a request for arbitration filed regarding Lucky 6.9. Daniel.Bryant 11:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Those requests appear frivolous. He protected his talk page when he needed to cool down [107] which in my opinion is a good thing. At least one of the RFC links is totally dead. If that page needs to be unprotected, another admin can do that. As far as I can determine, his talk page material is properly archived. There's no need for an arbitration case. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I encourage you to give any opinion you have at the arbitration page, as it is unlikely they will read it here. I didn't submit the RfAr, nor do I agree with it, but nevertheless felt it would benefit any discussion that takes place here. Daniel.Bryant 12:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Guess what I've done. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• I don't think administrators who are actively deleting articles and blocking accounts should have their talk page protected for weeks at a time. Otherwise I don't see a problem here. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

He will be back in a week. -Lapinmies 17:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I had hoped that it would not come to this. I chastised User:Johnpedia, here, for inappropriate personal attacks (calling another editor a "wikinazi", etc. in this post). Johnpedia came back at me with a personal attack starting here. I let it go because I had been a bit harsh but warned him/her to stop. After repeated confrontation responses from Johnpedia and further warnings from me I thought Johnpedia had finally taken my advice to just not "talk" to me if he could not control himself. Apparently that is not the case as he just posted again on my talk page. I was prepared to let that go too and just let it end there until I saw User:Johnpedia and this diff where he posts a very obvious reference that I am "having mental health problems". Can an admin please help Johnpedia "get it" that this behavior is inappropriate and it is not just my "having mental health problems" (laff). Other users have also warned him about this behavior but it doesn't seem to be working. Thanks --Justanother 13:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but I think this should be let go pending the user performing further egregious personal attacks. One of the tough things about being a responsible user on Wikipedia is accepting that people won't always react well to warnings; rather than insisting that people aknowledge that their behavior was in error and improve 100% immediately, it's sometimes better to let petulant responses go. (That is to say, it's not important if his behavior improves in response to your warning, only that it improves.) If he had responded to your warnings by swearing and insulting you directly, I'd block him for sure, but as it is I think it's better to let him alone and see if he repeats the personal attacks in other contexts. I don't see another really egregious personal attack since your last warning; if I missed it, then of course disregard my comments. I also won't object if another admin handles this differently. -- SCZenz 14:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I was of the same mind but I think that this diff constitutes the sufficiently "egregious personal attack since [my] last warning". --Justanother 14:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. I'm with Justanother - that comment on his userpage was way out of line, and shows a fundamental lack of respect for other editors. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh! I'm sorry, I missed entirely that "just another user" was a reference to User:Justanother. Of course you're right to block. Sorry for the mistake, Justanother—I've adjusted my speech above appropriately. -- SCZenz 15:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No prob. Thanks for seeing that and my thanks to Mr. Darcy. --Justanother 15:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. And SCZenz gets the monthly award for Best Use of Strikethrough. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I propose a half-protection of article Opus Dei due to aggravated vandalism by IP 58.160.187.3, who not only inserted deliberate factual errors but also replaced the original image of Escrivá in the article into a forged and intentionally insulting image. An identical attack was made 12 days ago by User:Pere-la-chase.--Túrelio 15:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It's been sprotected.--Wizardman 16:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

As of today User:Pere-la-chase again deposited in :en a forged, intentionally insulting alteration[108] of an existing photo of St. Josemaria Escriva [Image:Stjosemariaprayercard.jpg] with the purpose of replacing the original picture in article Opus Dei, though the latter action was accomplished by IP 58.160.187.3 (already blocked). Names of original and forged image differ only in 1 letter. 12 days ago the same image was deposited onto :en and inserted by User:Pere-la-chase into article Opus Dei [109]. As I’m not familiar with speedy deletion, I’m asking for speedy deletion of the forged image [Image:Stjosemarioprayercard.jpg] from :en and for action against User:Pere-la-chase as the repeated deposit of such an image is clearly bad faith and he/she also placed a falsificated summary (taken from the page of the original image) on the description page [110] in order to fake an approval of the forged image by the original copyright holder, Communications Office of Opus Dei. If tolerated, such malevolent behaviour probably will discourage other users from contributing valuable images to wikipedia in the future.-- Túrelio 15:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Image deleted. Opus Dei is currently protected. Guy (Help!) 16:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This user uploaded several copyrighted maps that he scanned and claimed GFDL on. I warned him several times and he continues to revert the no license tag. Please assist; thank you. --NE2 17:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems that you have warned them that they may be blocked if they continue, and they seem to have stopped. If they upload any more copyvios or revert the deletion tags again, let us know. Jkelly 17:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually the recent reversions were after the message, but only by a few minutes. I guess I'll wait to see if he does it again; he might not have read the message until after. --NE2 18:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

user Nareklm removes a big chunk of text with quotes and references on page [March Days]. It is not a first time he removes references without any excuses, discussion and proves--Dacy69 17:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Your moves are bias and pov i will not tolerate that. Nareklm 17:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Also we don't know if its verifiable, [111] Nareklm 17:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I will be advising all parties involved on the relevant talk page; this is not clear-cut vandalism and should be dealt with as a third opinion, which I shall provide. Srose (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have copied this discussion to Discussion page at March Days, let's discuss there. Tengri 17:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Content disputes do not belong here. – Chacor 17:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

As such, I moved discussion to Talk:March Days (as stated above), where it is rapidly resolving. :) Srose (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The autoblock locating tool is down at the moment. Can someone kick it, please? --Yamla 19:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• *kick* *kick* :-) (I'll bug a dev about this) ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• • It's a toolserver tool so bugging the devs probably won't help. But it seems to be working fine for me. When you mean "down" what do you mean? Can't get the front screen or searches fail etc. --pgk 19:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • DB error when doing any search. Seems to be working fine now, though. Thanks. --Yamla 19:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Does blatant violation of WP:CIVIL and personal attacks on edit summaries of Crawfordsville, IN count as a reason to invoke User 67.98.16.196's block warning from 15th Jan.? I think he may also be using sockpuppets ParvatiBai 19:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No... WP:CIVIL states "personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress...". Just being an ass to nobody in particular isn't really against WP:CIVIL. If you think this editor is sockpuppeting, please provide diffs or report it at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets.--Isotope23 19:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently administrator intervention against vandalism only deals with simple vandalism, so I'll report this here (I was never told where to report it). DCarltonsm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (earlier 71.247.255.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) continues to add unsourced but possibly-true material and pure speculation (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive180#What to do about repeated addition of unsourced and speculative information? for details). Can someone take care of this? Thank you. --NE2 19:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd point out that Mr. Darcy has warned the user here. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 11:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I had already warned him several times on User talk:71.247.255.190, including once with the "approved warning template". --NE2 13:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

He did it again (on R68 (New York City Subway car)). What am I to do? --NE2 23:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I moved this down since no one seems to have seen my recent posts. --NE2 15:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have issued a final warning so that he cannot deny knowing that it will result in a block. Next instance will result in a block. I think we should assume good faith here, so it should be a 24h-ish block. —bbatsell ¿? 16:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

He did it again this morning with the same edit. --NE2 20:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I blocked him for 24 hours and left him a warning not to do it again. I also gave him links to WP:V and WP:RS so hopefully he gets the message.--Isotope23 20:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --NE2 20:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

And again, after the block: [112] Also 15:12, 26 January 2007 (hist) (diff) m Sourced (←Created page with 'IT's Sourced') --NE2 20:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

R160A (New York City Subway ca train) needs to be moved over R160A (New York City Subway car). --NE2 20:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have repaired the mess with R160A (New York City Subway ca train) and R160A (New York City Subway car). I have also indefinitely blocked User:DCarltonsm as a disruptive sockpuppet of User:DCarltonsm@msn.com, who was blocked a few months ago for the same kind of repeated, relentless addition of unsourced material. Comparing the edits of the two accounts makes the connection quite clear. If nothing else, the names are undeniably similar. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 02:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

137.90.156.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esoltas (talk • contribs)

Blocked. Next time, please take such reports to WP:AIV for a swifter response. And please sign your edits. Thanks! --²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly deleted sourced material from the artcle Boris Stomakhin. Appropriate set of warnings were posted on the talk page. Apart from the official warnings, he was warned unoffically alot. Biophys himself wrote that he doesn't wishes to continue the dialogue or discuss the changes. Some reverts were not even discussed on the talk page and never commented. The dispute was decided twice by the Wikipedia administrators Alex Bakharev and Mikka and they found Biophys to be wrong. Nevetheless, Biophys is persistent in violation of Wikipedia rules.Vlad fedorov 20:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This dispute was never decided by the Wikipedia administrators Alex Bakharev and Mikka. This is Living Person biography dispute. I have posted this case as clear violation at the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard long time ago, as a creator of this article. This is typical living person defamation case using unreliable and mutually controversial sources: the alleged "articles" are not dated (worse than blog); the texts of alleged citations of the same article contradict each other; the web site has no any editorial oversight, and so on. See Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Article development. None of the Administrators disputed these arguments. The problem is: user Vlad Fedorov makes personally offensive comments, including that he wish me to die. This left no possibility for further negotiations. I spent a lot of time (hundreds of edits) trying to find a compromise with Vlad Fedorov (administrators Alex Bakharev and Mikka did try to help a little - thanks to them!), but it is our responsibility to have a version of the article consistent with Wikipedia LP policies. If it is clearly inconsistent, there is no any room to compromise. Biophys 20:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

71.196.33.45 has vandalized the matthias jakob schleiden page, somebody pleasee fix it and give this user the proper punishment.

Musicaldemon 20:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverted, warning now. Shimeru 21:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the IP's got final warnings. Reported it on WP:AIV instead. Shimeru 21:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the account Mediapr claims to be run by multiple people. According to WP:SOCK the only officially sanctioned role account Schwartz PR, so this would appear to be a violation. Am I mistaken? Wildnox04:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is certainly a violation. I'll notify them, which is probably preferrable to an instant block. -Amark moo! 04:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like they've been creating vanity articles for themselves, well-referenced, but written like resumes and without evidence of notability. I just tagged Jerry Calliste Jr. for speedy deletion (definitely would like to have another admin check it, rather than deleting it myself, in case I missed notability). | Mr. Darcy talk 04:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the tag. Notability was asserted, and speedy tagging something that passed an AfD is not a good idea anyway. -Amark moo! 04:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is the assertion of notability? ("Notability was asserted" doesn't clear it up for me.) He didn't chart as Hashim, and I don't see any articles in that bloated refs section that would qualify him under WP:MUSIC. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

We could discuss it, but I'm kinda lazy, so I'll just go with the fact that you can't speedy something that survived an AfD. -Amark moo! 23:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff has decided that, since he likes instruction creep and he alleges that many of our processes contain instruction creep [113], therefore WP:CREEP is no longer a guideline [114]. I would appreciate some feedback on this matter. >Radiant< 13:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was never a "long-standing guideline." It was tagged as nothing, then as an essay until Radiant decided, without any significant discussion to note, that it was a guideline. [115] When that was noticed by a couple editors and brought up at the talk page, User:jossi marked it down to {{proposed}} per the discussion.[116] Since that time, no effort has been made to build consensus for it, and there's plenty of examples of the point that the essay doesn't reflect current practice. Radiant would rather work toward sheer force of will (and, for that matter, misconstrue my arguments). A typical behavior of him on Wikipedia-space pages. Ironically enough, his complaint now is the first time I can see that he's actually looked for outside input on the essay, something he should have done almost two months ago and could have avoided this entire charade. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, I don't understand how this is an incident requiring administrator attention ... if you're looking for feedback on your proposed guideline, it would be better placed at Wikipedia:Village pump. If it's about Jeff's response, what do you expect to happen? Proto::► 13:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's not my proposed guideline. I seek feedback on Jeff's unilateral declaration that it isn't a guideline. Last time this came up (where he points to) it was discussed on its talk page, the village pump as well as the admin noticeboard (so his allegation that it wasn't discussed is false) and it was pointed out that most people agree that we should avoid instruction creep. Hence it is a guideline. >Radiant< 13:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict x 2) To me, the way that guidelines are created is that enough people generally agree that they're a guideline that nobody objects when a {{guideline}} tag is placed on the page (much the same way edits are made to articles). Whether I agree with that project page or not, I don't think that there's consensus to mark it as a guideline; even if a page has been around for a long time, that doesn't necessarily mean that it fits guideline potential (would you place {{guideline}} on WP:BJAODN?). I'm not going to change the tag back to {{proposed}}, though. (By the way, I think Radiant!s already reverted this page 3 times in 24 hours; while this falls short of WP:3RR, I would advise everyone involved to sort out a dispute by discussion before the edit war rather than after it.) --ais523 13:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of this particular dispute. But it is my exprience that Radiant has a sometimes overly aggreesive and dogmatic attitude when attempting to force through his desired changes and when dealing with criticism that is not always conducive to consensus building, in my view. If Jeff's done this without first canvassing opinions on the relevent talk page, then that is a bit naughty however. Badgerpatrol 13:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but I'm not forcing through changes here. I'm endorsing the status quo. Jeff is forcing through a change that I disagree with, and indeed he has done this without first canvassing opinions on the relevent talk page. >Radiant< 13:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This is false. The status quo was that this was not a guideline, until you snuck in and tagged it with no discussion. The only people attempting to start a dialogue are the ones who oppose it. Maybe this is part of a larger problem? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• It gets problematic when people start talking about "marking it as a guideline". What matters is whether it is a guideline. It's about the content, not the tag. In other words, do most people agree that instruction creep is a bad thing? Do overly complex policy proposals get struck down under WP:CREEP? Do people link to it a lot? >Radiant< 13:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• And are you and Jeff headed for meltdown? Fundamentally, I agree that WP:CREEP is a fair statement of the consensus on excess process. Tactically, I don't think it merits yet another edit war. There being no deadline, a bit of discussion would not hurt. Guy (Help!) 13:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• To answer your first question, the answer would be yes if I was more than simply annoyed, but I'm not. I have no intention on spending much more, if any, time on the subject here. If he needs to run to the administrators because he's not getting his way instead of the general editing population, then it says a lot for what he believes should occur.--badlydrawnjeff talk 14:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, this should be talken to the village pump. As far as I can tell from the edit history, this seems to be a debate about whether CREEP's long-standing history on meta means that it is a guideline on en.wikipedia or whether it needs independent consensus. BDJ isn't the only person on his side of the debate, and I haven't seen any evidence that he wouldn't be amenable to dispute resolution. Without touching the irony of the position that (1) the automatic acceptance of guidelines from meta (2) means we automatically get a guideline saying don't make too many guidelines, the issue seems perfect for the village pump. TheronJ 15:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This edit by Radiant was not helpful (removing criticism under the aegis of 'removing personal attacks', and I have reverted it). I will not do so again, but I would ask that Radiant is careful about removing comments about his actions and alleging they are personal attacks; leave it to an uninvolved admin in future. Proto::► 15:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Can we not stop accusing each other of personal attacks every time we get in a dispute? It's not like it doesn't happen all the time. 146.186.44.199 22:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, some of Jeff's comment have been less than helpful "If he needs to run to the administrators because he's not getting his way instead of the general editing population, then it says a lot for what he believes should occur.", "A typical behavior of him on Wikipedia-space pages.". Personal attacks? Debatable. Helping to solve the issue? Not so much. SuperMachine 15:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not defending Jeff's comments. Jeff is bright enough to know that what he said was also unhelpful to the discussion. Proto::► 15:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I can accept that, but I just call 'em as I see 'em - I ask multiple times for him to build consensus at the typical channels, he refuses, and then, once he hits his 3rd revert, runs to AN/I? At some point, you simply get sick of the BS - I want to improve the situation, but the tendentuous editing at the project pages makes it impossible. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I have a hard time seeing this as not related with the disputes at WP:CCC and WP:PI. The entire war over the status of some texts is tiresome at best, and ultimately stems from the "WP:CCC makes WP:CON irrelevant" argument that Jeff originally spouted over at WP:OC, which is elading to an endless wikilawyering war over what supercedes what.Circeus 19:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

User KosMetfan (talk · contribs) constantly breaks NPOV rules. Article Operation Storm has been vandalized by him 5 times in the last 10 days (and before that) by adding the word "genocidal" and other comments. This is not an isolated case as he is active on other pages too, mostly related to Kosovo issue where he does the same practice.

He has been consistantly warned about the NPOV rule on his talk pages, but he just ignores warnings by deleting talk page information and continues.

Agim Çeku article has just been locked due to his consistant vandalism.The Spanish Inquisitor 20:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This user needs to take some time off. He adds extremist pro-Serbian content like [117], [118], [119], and [120]. And, if you're wondering why there's no warnings on his talk page, it's because he always removes anything he doesn't like: [121]. I encourage, no, beg an administrator to give this one 24h. 146.186.44.199 21:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is not vandalism but a disruptive content dispute. I will warn him/her once again (ChrisO already did yesterday). Asterion^talk 22:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This Green Comrades Fan Website link has been removed by Shadowbot from the AC Omonia page. Just wondering why this has been done.

• Just a surface reading, but "fan site" does it for me. Web forums are not reliable, verifiable sources. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I was told to post it here instead of the vandalism message board: A user previously warned by up to Test4 (User talk:VinceB/Blabla1) and blocked for edit warring and sock puppetry has now changed a citation from an academic journal (replacing "nationalist" by a weaker description, not mentioned at all in the cited article).[122] After this vandalism was reverted, an IP with only three edits in its history (all of them reverts to VinceB's versions of articles) did absolutely the same.[123] Since RFI page is now practically dead, no one has dealt with my request there. So, VinceB has applied this new kind of vandalism on another page today, changing a referenced statement into practically its opposite.[124] It would be nice if someone stops this practice before the citations in Wikipedia become an unreliable mess. Tankred 21:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked. Guy (Help!) 23:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

i've been listed as a sockpuppet for some strange reason. i'm unsure as to why. just need help in presenting some evidence for this. thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Mykungfu%2864th%29 . I was referred to you by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tellyaddict thanks AfricanAmericanHistorian 21:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new here so I'm not sure how to handle this. User:Punjabikisser created article Bindy johal via a cut and paste from [[125]]. Within a day after it was tagged and deleted, the same user created article Bhupinder (Bindy) Singh Johal via cut and paste from [[126]], another website hosting the same article.

I assume there's some sort of persistent intentional copyvio policy, so I leave it in your hands. --Butseriouslyfolks 22:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, the user may have used the same source for both articles, but User:Wherebot picked it up from different copies of the article on different websites. -- Butseriouslyfolks 22:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

For awhile I thought Leyasu had finally given up the sock warfare. It appears I was wrong. The user has come back recently. Todays incarnation was 81.153.44.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and other incarnations recently included 81.157.80.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 217.44.160.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Is there any way to use a rangeblock to prevent these socks from appearing? Also, I know it sounds stupid, but can somebody confirm that being banned from wikipedia includes being banned from talk pages; Leyasu has claimed that she can edit talk pages.--Wildnox(talk) 00:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)